Hi, I’m Skyler.

Welcome to my website.
Who the hell am I?
Just a man.
And a husband.
And a father of 3.
Also a writer.
And a podcaster. (Join me?)
Sometimes a web designer.
But always a seeker of riches.
And the richness of life.
Explore what I do or have done at the links above.

My Latest Content

Editor’s Break 062 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: having a foundation in principle, whether he’s a conservative or a liberal, the importance of disarming society toward an authoritarian agenda, what feminism is and if he wears that label, childism, why we quit things and why the desire for children to quit things should be respected, and more.

Our family nighttime routine includes watching a show or two together before going to bed. One of the Netflix series we are enjoying is “One Day at a Time“, which showcases a Cuban-American family of 4 (single mother, 2 teenagers, a grandma) and their goofy Canadian landlord.

Last night’s episode touched on the idea of obtaining American citizenship and the “importance” of voting. Typical mainstream thought, but the grandma had always resisted obtaining American citizenship because it meant renouncing her Cuban citizenship, and she’s not yet ready to do that. She still has hope that she’ll be able to return one day to see the country following better political leadership. The irony in the critical implication of Cuban government to an episode dedicated to promoting voting was not lost on me.

As is my children’s wont when encountering ideas they are unfamiliar with, my daughter asked me, “What’s a citizen?”

My wife became (allegedly) an American citizen 9 years ago this month. I became (allegedly) an American citizen the moment I was born, in Salt Lake City.

This question is not as easy to answer for me as it once was. Before understanding the facts about government, I would have answered to the effect of , “A citizen is someone who is a recognized subject of the government.” *almost vomits* (My apologies, but that was very difficult to write.)

Or rather, in a way understandable to an 8-year-old. Today, that’s not the answer that I can honestly give. So at first, I resisted, and made a few jokes. I needed to time to think on it. While we were brushing our teeth, the following ensued:

Me: Rosie, let me help you understand what a citizen is.

Rosie: Okay.

Me: Let’s say that I didn’t like pink hair and I told you that I was making a rule that nobody could dye their hair pink who lived around here, including you. If you did, then I would put you in jail. Would that make me a good guy, or a bad guy?

Rosie: That would make you a bad guy.

Me: That’s right. Because you can dye your hair pink if you want and it’s nobody else’s business.

Rosie: Right.

Me: That’s sort of like what being a citizen, or not, means. It means that somebody else’s rules interfere with how you want to live your life. And if you don’t follow their rules, they will put you in jail.

Rosie: Hmm… okay.

I have no doubt this or related questions will come my way in the future. I want to be very careful not to teach my kids to believe in either lies, myths, or things that are not true. It’s not easy. The above is the best way I could think of, using her language, and I’m sure very little of what I conveyed really stuck.

Laws regarding citizenship are like any other laws: arbitrary opinions by busybodies backed up by violence. If these laws don’t apply, and there’s not a single shred of evidence that they do, then nobody is, factually, a citizen. Some people just think they are, and are willing to use violence in support of their belief.

Editor’s Break 061 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: what DeFOOing is and whether or not its an ethical practice, why increasing the costs to criminal behavior is a necessary component of keeping society safe, and what “archation” is all about.

Editor’s Break 060 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the distinction of libertarian political philosophy from libertarian legal philosophy, the practice of abortion, where he comes down personally on the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, Walter Block’s evictionism compromise, Richard Dawkins on gun control, the FBI on the possibility of China spying on Americans through their phones, and Trump’s insane militarism.

Editor’s Break 059 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: whether or not it’s wrong to disapprove of homosexuality, what libertarianism is and why everybody could be a libertarian, in the way runaway slaves and “illegal” immigrants are the same, and more.

Editor’s Break 058 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: his objectives as a parent raising children, the goal of all purposeful behavior, why the power to detain is the definition of tyranny, enjoying the small moments in life, income vs. consumption taxation, and more.

Editor’s Break 057 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: proper parenting practices and supporting our children in their choices, the efforts of the Libertas Institute of Utah for the 2018 legislative session, why immigrants are great people, and so-called illegal immigrants even more so, military parades, school abuse, why every relationship is an exchange and the importance of only maintaining beneficial relationships, and more.

Episode 101 welcomes Mike Campbell to the podcast for a chat with Skyler. Topics include: how he found himself homeless, moving around the Salt Lake valley living in a tent, future employment, childhood trauma and substance abuse, police and the expanding definition of crime, podcasting basics, moving toward peaceful parenting, forcing kids to lie, the natural curiosity of children, free range kids movement, child abduction and yelling “Fire!” to prevent it, unschooling, spending time in jail, and more.

Editor’s Break 056 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: the obligations children have toward their elderly parents, his commitment and the importance of providing a multi-generational household for his children and grandchildren, the phenomenon of immigration and the crimes committed by immigrants and refugees, and whether or not incestuous relationships and their reproduction should be considered crimes.

A few discussions recently have got me thinking about when physical force may be justifiably used in response to the actions of others. There’s little controversy around using physical force to defending oneself when being physically attacked. Even most pacifists (in my experience) acknowledge that not using physical force even in those instances is a personal choice, not an ethical statement.

I consider the libertarian non-aggression principle to be quite useful most of the time in determining justified action and reaction utilizing physical force. Let me begin by defining my terms.

Physical force is the application of energy in action or movement. Examples: walking around the block; hugging a loved one; picking up or moving stuff around.

Violence is physical force applied in a destructive or potentially destructive way. Examples: punching somebody; throwing a glass against the wall; breaking an object apart.

Aggression is the initiation of physical force or violence against another person or their property without their permission. Examples: hugging someone without their permission; punching somebody without their permission; throwing somebody else’s glass against the wall without the permission of either the glass or wall owners; taking, handling, or breaking somebody else’s property without their permission.

The libertarian non-aggression principle states that a person is not justified in using aggression against other people or their property. It’s really quite unremarkable, but has enormous implications. With this principle, we can categorize most actions as either justified, or not. Here are two examples: punching a boxing opponent is justified, punching a stranger is not; moving my friend’s sofa to his new apartment is justified, moving a stranger’s sofa to my new apartment is not.

Libertarians love analyzing which actions on the fringe of human behavior constitute aggression, and which do not. The following is an example of just such analysis.

At what point should an action be considered aggression, of which it would be justified in responding with physical force or violence? Most obvious forms of uninvited physical force or violence should be considered aggression. I’ve given some examples of those. Other examples are different types of theft, battery, kidnap, rape, and murder.

I posit that trespassing, the act of entering another person’s property, is not always aggression. Sometimes it is, such as when the owner is unsure of a trespasser’s intent. Is the trespasser lost, or does he plan on hurting or robbing me or my property? It’s an unknown, and so treating it as aggression or probable aggression is not unreasonable. However, I believe there are cases where classifying a trespass as aggression is not reasonable.

Here’s one such case: a transient walking through a golf course. In this case, the transient is merely passing through. He’s not damaging or displacing the golf course in any quantifiable way. I would consider any use of physical force or violence against his person or property to be unjustified, and thus an act of aggression in and of itself. He would thus be justified in using physical force or violence in self-defense.

No, he does not have permission by the golf course owner, and yes his passing through the golf course is technically a trespass. However, it is not a trespass in any meaningful way, certainly not to the extent needed to justify the use of physical force or violence against him. What if he’s been approached once before and asked not to pass through? What if he’s been approached multiple times in the past and asked not to pass through? I still consider the trespass benign and all that entails.

At this point, the only recourse the golf course owner has is in better security. If he doesn’t want transients passing through, he should build a fence.

I think the logic used in this analysis can be applied to all sorts of situations. The relevant key in determining when the solution is physical force or violence, or when the solution is better security is the concept of quantifiable damage. Does the action produce or will it probably produce quantifiable damage? In the case of a transient passthrough, the answer seems to me to be negative.

What about a case where someone picks up and looks at someone else’s property without permission? It seems the answer is negative as well. What about a case where someone decides to squat in an unoccupied vacation home? It seems the answer is affirmative to me, as this action typically requires breaking before entering, displacement of property inside, and the threat of damage to property and/or the owners once they arrive.

Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” I consider that apropos on the question of how to prevent unwanted albeit non-aggressive actions by others as it concerns our property. I predict that in a totally free society, security will be a higher expense on our personal financial statements than will be reactionary force or violence. And without a central authority either monopolizing or subsidizing the use of violence, property norms will develop in such a way as to minimize these expenses.